Which lens ? Contax 645 45/2.8 or the 35/3.5 if I had a choice ?

[fudsylow]

Hi guys... my first post !!!!!!!!

Just about to purchase a wide lens for my contax 645 I am also about to order.....

Which lens is generally considered the better lens out of the 45 and the 35 ?

Would appreciate any feedback...

Thanks,
Rich.

[asphet]

of course 35mm la,it's great details & color,beat hasseblad 40mm

but if have spare money own both is a good idea,45mm is also very very good

[fotometria gr]

Hi guys... my first post !!!!!!!!

Just about to purchase a wide lens for my contax 645 I am also about to order.....

Which lens is generally considered the better lens out of the 45 and the 35 ?

Would appreciate any feedback...

Thanks,
Rich.

   Hope its not a late quote Rich, I own all Contax lenses but the 350, the quality of the line is perhaps the best around. My recommendation would depend on the lens strategy that you aim for, if its the usual WA, STD, portrait, three lens strategy (traditionally 50, 80, 150) You may consider the 45 or 55. If however you aim for more, the 35 is a real star and it leaves room for the 55 or the 45-90 zoom. The lens is almost distortionless, most resistant to flare and color is better than ......Zeiss!! These values apply to the whole series of lenses and of course to the 45 as well ...its just that the 35 (and 120m) is more than top class, ....its near to a dream lens! Regards, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
P.S. I think you won't regret your choice of camera system, I changed to Contax on 2006 because I was planning for a MFDB (I was with Etrsi and 10!! PS lenses with all screens, viewfinders etc). I choose the Contax after considering other systems that still run. If I was to make the choice now ....it would be the same choice without considering competition! I'll die with this system.

[EinstStein]

35mm is sharper, but I found 45mm much more useful than 35mm. 35mm usually is too wide for me, and the distortion is quite bothersome.
I'm talking about for both film and 49mm x 36mm digital back.
For film, 45mm is equivalent to 30mm in 35mm format, and 35mm is equivalent to 24mm.
For 49x36mm digital back, 45mm is about 35mm, and 35mm is about 28mm.
So it depends on which  focal range suites you better. I'd suggest to value the focal range above the sharpness.
 

[fotometria gr]

35mm is sharper, but I found 45mm much more useful than 35mm. 35mm usually is too wide for me, and the distortion is quite bothersome.
I'm talking about for both film and 49mm x 36mm digital back.
For film, 45mm is equivalent to 30mm in 35mm format, and 35mm is equivalent to 24mm.
For 49x36mm digital back, 45mm is about 35mm, and 35mm is about 28mm.
So it depends on which  focal range suites you better. I'd suggest to value the focal range above the sharpness.
 

Actually the values up there are not correct, there is no way to compare a 3:4 frame with a 2:3 frame, or a square frame counting the diagonal of the image circle. The correct way to do this, is not to compare diagonal but horizontal angle on the wider side. At least that is what manufacturers do (that is why the 80mm is considered as standard for both 6x6 or 6x4.5). There is no photographer that approaches a subject view with the diagonal of his lens, its either horizontal or vertical! The distance of the lens mount to the light sensitive area (film or sensor) is also different between 6x4.5 or 6x6, it varies slightly between manufacturers as well (for example Contax is slightly shorter than Mamyia 645). The recorded frame varies between manufacturers as well and is 56mmx40.5 for Contax. The angle of view in the horizontal (larger) part of the frame, if compared to the same approach with 35mm would be "Focal length times 36 divided by 56", this will end up with wider values than those you quote. The same values for a 37x49 MFDB like my Imacon 528c would be "FL x 36 by 49" and this will end up much wider than you quote. In fact the feeling is of an even wider lens because the vertical view is much wider and this changes the approach to the subject. Cheers, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. As I already quoted 35mm is almost distortionless, if yours isn't you may have a defective sample, mine behaves exactly like others that I know off...

[EinstStein]

>> As I already quoted 35mm is almost distortionless, if yours isn't you may have a defective sample, mine behaves exactly like others that I know off...

"Almost" distortionless? sure, since "almost" is a subjective word, I see no point to argue against it to to agree with it.

On your argument about whether the angle comparison to other format should be base don the short side or the long side or the diagonal, I'll leave it to you.
I don't see anyone makes more or less sense than the other, it all depends on what you are shooting. In some situation I found the shorter dimension to be more important for my framing, and some other situation it's the longer dimension, and I'm sure someone someday could find it's the diagonal.

That's why I quoted with two values, one according to the shorter side and the other to the longer side. I apologyze I missed the diagonal one.

Seriously, I think these type of arbuements or  insistence is quite funny.

[fotometria gr]

>> As I already quoted 35mm is almost distortionless, if yours isn't you may have a defective sample, mine behaves exactly like others that I know off...

"Almost" distortionless? sure, since "almost" is a subjective word, I see no point to argue against it to to agree with it.

On your argument about whether the angle comparison to other format should be base don the short side or the long side or the diagonal, I'll leave it to you.
I don't see anyone makes more or less sense than the other, it all depends on what you are shooting. In some situation I found the shorter dimension to be more important for my framing, and some other situation it's the longer dimension, and I'm sure someone someday could find it's the diagonal.

That's why I quoted with two values, one according to the shorter side and the other to the longer side. I apologyze I missed the diagonal one.

Seriously, I think these type of arbuements or  insistence is quite funny.

The reason I quoted is obviously because there are people that are newcomers in MF, to them it may be misleading to compare 35mm AOV with MF, it may also create them the impression that they can't go wide enough. I'm sure you didn't state the shorter and the longer sides but you did state 2 values, one for film and another for a 37x49 DB for comparison with 35mm. Those values were (quite) a bit longer than reality (more than 10deg sometimes) and I thought of stating the correct ones. There is no argument in my post, its only that I felt of fixing a mistake that could, in my view, be misleading! I'm sorry you see it as a "pointless funny argument" its not! Regards Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. "Almost" is not subjective, it goes to show that rectilinear correction of lenses can't be of 100% but there are superb lenses like this one that have approached it as much as it can be done.

[EinstStein]

I want to add what I mean by distortion.
Normally, for non-architect landscape, distortion is not a problem, sometime it is even desirable. The distortion may add some advantagsours strentch.
For architect and architectural landscape, personally I can't torlerate distortion. This is one area Contax 35mm/3.5 needs a lot PS.
For protrature, this is really a war zone. For fashion portraits, believe me, professional photgraphers love that distortion to death. No distiotion means no sell. (Lips have to be blue, the model's expression must be good for Holloween movie's poster, and the movement of the legs and the arms must look like doing the DUI tests. etc.)
But for family album is different, this is what I use for my distortion criteria. If I shoot a famiy album with Contax 35mm/3.5, I'd have to make sure no one standing or sitting out of the middle 1/3rd zone. Otherwise for certain there is no sell. I hve much less concersn on this with 45mm or 80mm.

[fotometria gr]

I want to add what I mean by distortion.
Normally, for non-architect landscape, distortion is not a problem, sometime it is even desirable. The distortion may add some advantagsours strentch.
For architect and architectural landscape, personally I can't torlerate distortion. This is one area Contax 35mm/3.5 needs a lot PS.
For protrature, this is really a war zone. For fashion portraits, believe me, professional photgraphers love that distortion to death. No distiotion means no sell. (Lips have to be blue, the model's expression must be good for Holloween movie's poster, and the movement of the legs and the arms must look like doing the DUI tests. etc.)
But for family album is different, this is what I use for my distortion criteria. If I shoot a famiy album with Contax 35mm/3.5, I'd have to make sure no one standing or sitting out of the middle 1/3rd zone. Otherwise for certain there is no sell. I hve much less concersn on this with 45mm or 80mm.

The WA distortion is inevitable and cannot be corrected, things will look different because the perspective is different from the one of the human eye. Rectilinear design is about correcting barrel or punctuation distortion and/or field curvature, ie to transform what is spherical into a plain field, it is the only distortion that can be measurable and that all tests consider. Contax 35mm is considered to be a king among MF lenses in being distortionless. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[EinstStein]

I admire your strong supports on the 35mm/3.5. But saying it's the king of dostortionless is not what I know. At least Hasselblad 38mm Biogon is much much better. Hasselblad 40mm FLE also has less distortion.
Contax 35mm is an excellent lens, but it's distortion need to be considered.   

[fotometria gr]

I admire your strong supports on the 35mm/3.5. But saying it's the king of dostortionless is not what I know. At least Hasselblad 38mm Biogon is much much better. Hasselblad 40mm FLE also has less distortion.
Contax 35mm is an excellent lens, but it's distortion need to be considered.   

I think you are quoting on equipment you have not experience of... If I'm wrong please correct me. Regards Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[EinstStein]

I think you are quoting on equipment you have not experience of... If I'm wrong please correct me. Regards Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

Oh yes, you are absolutely wrong. Don't mean to show off, but I do happen to have all these lenses.
I enjoy photography as much as enjoy playing with the instruments.

And I have no doubt that you also have enough experiences to stand behind your statements, such as Contax 35mm/3.5 is the king of distorionless MF lens!

[fotometria gr]

Oh yes, you are absolutely wrong. Don't mean to show off, but I do happen to have all these lenses.
I enjoy photography as much as enjoy playing with the instruments.

And I have no doubt that you also have enough experiences to stand behind your statements, such as Contax 35mm/3.5 is the king of distorionless MF lens!

You are correct in not having a doubt...., I do however  Regards, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr